Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
District Court, S.d. Alabama
March 18, 1924
No Number in Original
[*719] ERVIN, District Judge. This matter comes on to be heard on a motion filed by defendant to reopen the former decree of this court and permit defendant to offer newly discovered evidence tending to show anticipation of the idea disclosed in plaintiff's patent, and, further, because it is claimed the court, in the injunction granted in favor of plaintiff, exceeded the jurisdiction of the court, in that it overlooked the Act of Congress approved July 1, 1918 (40 Stat. 705, c. 114 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 9465]), amending the Act of June 25, 1910.
I here quote the material portions, both of the act of 1910 and of the amendatory act of 1918, italicizing the special language which is to be construed. I also bracket the words added by the amendatory act.
"] Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States shall hereafter be used by the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use the same, such owner may recover reasonable compensation for such use by suit in the Court of Claims. * * *" Act of 1910.
"Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States shall hereafter [**2] be used [or manufactured] by [or for] the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, such owner's remedy shall be by suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. * * *" Act of 1918.
The only words added by amendment to the original act are shown in the brackets, and they are "or manufactured" before the word "by" and "or for" following the word "by." So that primarily the act was amended only by adding the provision that, if a patented article should be manufactured for the United States, then the remedy of the patentee is fixed by the act.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
296 F. 718 *; 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1783 **
WOOD v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO.
patented article, manufacture, patent, contractor, patentee, independent contractor, injunction, infringer, words, damages, naval, Navy, procuring
Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Patent Law, Damages, Patentholder Losses, Compensation From United States, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Ownership, Patents as Property, Remedies, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Federal Government Inventions, Equitable Relief, Injunctions, Infringement Actions, Infringing Acts, Indirect Infringement